Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_2/V11_294.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 21KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/4a=z7o600VcJEDvU5G>;
          Sat, 21 Apr 90 01:39:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <Ea=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 01:38:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #294

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 294

Today's Topics:
         Re: Apollo 13, STS-1, Vostok 1 anniversaries
       Re: Pegasus launch planes - Altitude First, speed later?
          Re: Pegasus launch from Valkyrie  (or ...
       Re: Drake Equation (was Re: Interstellar travel)
              Re: space tomatoes
      Re: Discovery's Spin in 2010 (Was Re: Artificial gravity)
       747 mach story. was Pegasus launch from Valkyrie
              Re: Fermi Paradox
Giant crawler transporter to pass 1000 miles on STS-35 rollout (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 90 19:50:49 GMT
From: asuvax!mcdphx!udc![e-mail]  (Roger Noe)
Subject: Re: Apollo 13, STS-1, Vostok 1 anniversaries

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roger Noe) writes:
> > April 13, 1990 will be the
> > twentieth anniversary of the explosion which crippled the Apollo 13
> > service module, which would have stranded astronauts Lovell, Swigert,
> > and Haise in space had it not been for their resourcefulness and that
> > of the ground support crew.
>
> The three guys burned alive in a 2,000 degrees C inferno were White, the
> first american to have walked in space, Shaffee, a rookie, and Grissom, a
> Gemini astronaut. The way they died was stupid, with one of the three (he
> was hard to identify at autopsy and I don't remember the name) trying to
> open the access tunnel up to the last second and doing about 1/3 of all
> the needed procedures to accomplish this task...

No, the three Apollo 13 astronauts were Jim Lovell, John (??) Swigert,
and Fred Haise.  None of them died on that mission, or any other space
mission for that matter.  The crew of AS-204, the mission posthumously
(and unofficially) designated Apollo 1, were Gus Grissom, Ed White, and
Roger Chaffee.  They died on the pad January 27, 1967 when a flash fire
(not an explosion) ripped through Apollo spacecraft 12.  (By the way,
Grissom was not just a Gemini astronaut, but one of the original seven
Mercury astronauts, and the second American in space.  Ed White became
the first American to conduct an EVA on Gemini IV, June 3, 1965.)

I think I remember from History of Manned Space Flight, Chariots for
Apollo, and other books that all three Apollo 1 astronauts died from
asphyxiation and smoke inhalation.  They were not burned alive, although
they were burned.  None of the astronauts was difficult to identify at
autopsy, although there was some confusion when they first opened the
spacecraft.  I think it was Grissom, the mission commander, who had pulled
himself up and out of his side seat toward the hatch in an attempt to
undo the bolts.  Before he got very far he passed out because there was
no more oxygen left in the sealed spacecraft.  The fire went out almost
as quickly as it started, but the thick smoke remained.  A much darker
day in the history of space exploration than when Haise (I think) radioed,
"Houston, we've got a problem."

Trivia time:  The nickname of the Apollo 13 command module was Odyssey,
after the ship in the movie "2001".  The lunar module, which served as
the astronauts' "lifeboat", was nicknamed Aquarius.
--
Roger Noe               Motorola Microcomputer Division, Urbana Design Center
Phone:  [phone]        1101 East University Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
Internet:  [e-mail]                 UUCPnet:  uiucuxc!udc!rnoe
Latitude/Longitude:  40:06:55 N./88:11:40 W.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 90 05:45:33 GMT
From: sam.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]  (Vincent Cate)
Subject: Re: Pegasus launch planes - Altitude First, speed later?

Vincent Cate:
> I just calculated that the energy needed to lift something (say
> a Pegasus) 30,000 feet is about the same as that needed to make it
> go 1,000 MPH.

This is true.

> As I said above, an extra 6 miles up is about equal in energy to
> an extra 1,000 MPH.

Oops, not quite.  Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the
velocity.  The first 1,000 MPH is equal to the potential of being 6 miles
up.  If you dropped a rock from 6 miles up and there were no air it would
hit the ground at about 1,000 MPH.  However, how much energy goes into an
extra 1,000 MPH depends on how fast you start out going.  If the extra
is compared to the 600 MPH of a B-52 then it is a little more than
twice as much energy as going 6 miles higher.  You would have to drop
a rock (again with no air) from about 16 miles up to get to 1,600 MPH.

Anyway, it looks like going for high flying planes may be they first
thing to do.  It seems like this should increase the payload on a equatorial
launch from 900 to over 1,100 lbs and be worth about $2,000,000/launch.

Anyone know enough to be able actually calculate the increases in payload
(Not just estimating based on the increase from 600 lbs to 900 lbs when
going from polar to equatorial launch.  Seems like the next 1,000 MPH
might give another 50% increase in payload - except for the problem of the
3rd stage only firing after getting to the other side, maybe ).

    -- Vince

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 90 04:00:17 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pegasus launch from Valkyrie  (or ...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>The only way that the Concorde shows a profit is that the acquisition
>costs was written off rather than amortized.  It's a lot easier to make
>a profit on an airplane if someone gives you the airplane...

On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to make a profit on the
airplane if they insist on getting back all the development costs of a
very ambitious project by selling a production run of less than 20.
Given the impossibility of ever recovering the investment, giving the
things to the national airlines wasn't an unreasonable thing to do.
The cost situation isn't that dissimilar to what it would have been if
zillions of them had been sold -- they'd have purchase prices to repay
but maintenance would be quite a bit cheaper (getting spares made is
very costly for such a small fleet).

>What you want for the Pegasus launch vehicle is a good workhorse, with
>a large fleet for support, inexpensive to operate.  You don't want a
>plane that's a bigger risk than the Pegasus.

This, on the other hand :-), I agree with.  Using Concorde would have
to be a huge win to make it worthwhile.  It would help, but not that much.
--
With features like this,      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
who needs bugs?               | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 90 09:27:14 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!metro![e-mail]  (Tim Bedding)
Subject: Re: Drake Equation (was Re: Interstellar travel)

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Forrest Gehrke,2C-119,7239,ATTBL):
> I don't expect any
> intelligence in this galaxy to initiate a supernova and then
> sentiently modulate it to get our radio astronomers' attention.
>
No, but if a supernova went off by chance, it would make sense to start
sending signals in the _opposite_ direction.  Any ETs who studied the SN
closely might notice the signal (or may be smart enough to look for it).

I vaguely remember someone suggesting this neat idea when SN1987a went
off.  As far as I know, nobody has tried looking for radio signals in
the direction of it.

Tim Bedding
Dept of Astrophysics
Uni of Sydney

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 90 15:19:49 GMT
From: spock![e-mail]  (Peter Sheriff)
Subject: Re: space tomatoes


   I believe that it was Sir Walter Raliegh who caused a sensation in
the court of Elizabeth I when he ate a tomato or wolf apple as they
were known without ill effects. I guess they had no way of determining
the toxicity of a plant (other than the taste test) in those days.
   I don't suppose he was all that brave since he had probably seen
South American indians eating the things anyway.

                                Pete

P.S. How did this thread start in sci.space anyway????

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 90 08:44:01 GMT
From: uhccux!hubble![e-mail]  (David Griep)
Subject: Re: Discovery's Spin in 2010 (Was Re: Artificial gravity)

I am sure Discovery's spin has been explained to death.
But when I saw the movie, I started thinking on why it
was spinning end over end. So I whipped out my college
mechanics book looked at spinning tops.
When Discovery's carousel spun down do to friction, the
angular momentum of the carousel was directly transfered
so that Discovery is now spinning along its long axis.
So now Discovery is now a spinning top and aligned with
Jupiter and Io, and now with any gravitational or electro-
magnetic perturbation, Discovery will start to precess around
its center of mass and eventually with time will be spinning
end over end.
I hope I haven't bored you with another re-hash explanation.

DMG
________________________________________________________________________________
 David M. Griep
 NASA IRTF, Mauna Kea, Hawaii
 "Have Telescope, Will Slew"               The above opinions are mine, not
 [phone]                            my employer or any other sentient
 [e-mail]               life on this planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 90 23:04:11 GMT
From: pixar![e-mail]  (Loren Carpenter)
Subject: 747 mach story. was Pegasus launch from Valkyrie


    Can the Concorde carry any cargo?  Maybe the British or French can be
    convinced to part with one.  How much effect does the pod have on the
    ability of an aircraft to go supersonic?  I seem to remember hearing
    that the Concorde could go about Mach 2.2.  (An unmodified 747 or B-52
    goes what, about Mach .7 to .8?)

    Steve Duncan
    [e-mail]

A 747 cruises at about .86 Mach.  However, I recall a story from my days
at Boeing.  In the 70's (and probably still) Boeing tried real hard to get
the USAF to buy 747's for cargo, tankers, ANYTHING.  In the process, there
were a lot of demo flights for generals and other influential people.
One particular flight was accompanied by a friend of a friend.  I don't
think I ever knew his responsibilites, but he had occasion to stand in the
cockpit doorway from time to time.  So, out over eastern Washington state
(sagebrush and wheat for miles) this general says to the pilot, "Just how
fast does this thing go???".  Well, the plane was essentially empty, and
they were cleared for silly maneuvers, so the pilot reached for the
throttles and pulled them back to takeoff power, then pushed the nose
down a few degrees.  The noise level started to rise, from the aerodynamic
buffeting that you might expect.  In fact, it got quite loud (loud enough
to scare the passengers, if this were a commercial flight.).  Then all of
a sudden it got real quiet, except for the engine vibrations through the
structure.  After they all finished laughing, the pilot backed off the
throttles and slowed the plane to normal cruise speed.  My friend always
wondered how many tractor seats got wet that day.


                    Loren Carpenter
                    ...ucbvax!pixar!loren

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 90 23:17:07 GMT
From: mephisto!prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lou Adornato) writes:
>>There are only 2 elements that are capable of being the basis of
>>creating long, complex molecules, and those are carbon and silicon...
>
>Actually, silicon makes a lousy carbon substitute.  It's just different
>enough chemically that it prefers to clump up in rings and the like
>rather than forming long chains.  ...

If I remember my organic chemistry from high school correctly, the reason for
all this is that silicon atoms cannot form double or triple bonds; many, if
not most, organic compounds have at least one multiple bond in there somewhere.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards,
Office of Computing Services         for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
ARPA: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 90 04:18:05 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Giant crawler transporter to pass 1000 miles on STS-35 rollout (Forwarded)


  Bruce Buckingham
  407/867-2468                                    April 20, 1990

  KSC RELEASE NO. 74 - 90

  GIANT CRAWLER TRANSPORTER TO PASS 1000 MILES ON STS-35 ROLLOUT

       Kennedy Space Center's Crawler Transporter No. 2 could
  qualify for a Florida antique automobile tag. But the 25-year-
  old, 3,000 ton vehicle will just be passing its first 1,000 mile
  landmark as it carries the Space Shuttle Columbia to Pad 39-A for
  launch on the STS-35 mission in May.

       A ceremony marking this historic event is scheduled to be
  held during the STS-35 rollout on Sunday, April 22. KSC managers
  and those playing a role in the transporter's creation and
  operation over the years will be gathered approximately .8 of a
  mile to the east of the Vehicle Assembly Building as the
  transporter moves slowly past the point on the turnpike-wide
  crawlerway marking the 1,000th mile of service.

       The twin crawler transporters are vital links in the launch
  processing chain. They provide the means by which the launch
  vehicle atop its massive mobile launch platform is transferred
  from the Vehicle Assembly Building to the launch pad.

       During its slow roll to reach the 1,000 mile marker,
  transporter 2 has been operated by 10 different drivers. It has
  supported  Apollo, Skylab and Space Shuttle missions and provided
  service to the nation's space effort in the four decades from the
  1960s into the 1990s.  Crawler Transporter No. 1 is not far
  behind in accumulated mileage; it lacks approximately 25 miles to
  reach the 1,000-mile mark.

       Early concepts of transporting launch vehicles to the pads
  included a barge and canal system, a rail system, and the land
  transporter. The task of transforming one of these concepts into
  reality fell to Donald D. Buchanan, then Chief of the Launcher
  Systems and Umbilical Tower Design Section.  Now retired,
  Buchanan lives within sight of KSC at nearby Titusville.

       "The crawler transporter was the dark horse of the concepts
  being considered," Buchanan said. "But eventually the barge/canal
  concept proved too unstable and the rail system more costly and
  inflexible due to the loads it would be required to carry."

       Following a year of study, NASA decided in 1962 that the
  cross-land tracked vehicle, or crawler transporter, would be the
  most feasible means of moving the launch vehicle to the pads. An
  ambitious task was ahead.  Large volumes of soggy land had to be
  moved and a heavy-duty crawlerway built. The goal: build a system
  capable of moving the largest structures ever to be moved on land
  and move them several miles in a reasonable amount of time.

       "At the time," Buchanan said, "no one dreamed something that
  moved so slow would ever reach 1,000 miles."

       In 1963 the Marion Power Shovel Company, Marion, Ohio, was
  awarded the contract to build two crawler transporters. When
  built, the transporters dwarfed the self-propelled, strip-mining
  shovels after which they were patterned. The transporters were
  assembled in 1965-66. The cost of both transporters was under $15
  million.

       In 1969, the crawler transporters won the Great Britain
  Royal Automobile Club's third Diamond Jubilee Trophy Award. This
  placed the transporters in a class with the antarctic
  transporters and the hovercraft. Then President of the Royal
  Automobile Club, Lord Mountbatten, gave the award to NASA.
  Buchanan received the award for NASA for "the design, development
  and construction of the crawler transporter which provides
  mobility to the space vehicle structures required by the
  Apollo/lunar landing program at Kennedy Space Center, Fla."

       As the largest land vehicles ever built, the transporters in
  1977 were designated as National Historic Mechanical Engineering
  Landmarks by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

       Later in 1977, extensive modifications were made to the
  transporters. Modifications include the installation of a new
  central control room and the addition of a programmable
  controller capable of rapid trouble-shooting if a problem occurs
  during a critical move.  Also, a laser docking system was
  installed which allows the driver of the transporter to dock the
  massive vehicle with an accuracy of plus or minus one inch.

       Included in the modifications on transporter 2 was the
  installation of a new odometer. A plaque certifying the
  previously logged miles was placed in the transporter's cab. With
  the miles transporter 2 logged during the Apollo/Saturn V years
  added to the miles it has logged during the Shuttle program, the
  total will reach 1,000 during the STS-35 rollout. Pre-
  modification mileage totaled 644.

       The heaviest load transporter 2 has carried was the Saturn
  1B/Skylab on its mobile launcher platform. The combined weight of
  the platform, launch vehicle and payload totaled 13.2 million
  pounds, more than twice the weight of the transporter itself.

       Each transporter weighs six million pounds. The flat, load-
  toting tops are 131 feet long and 114 wide, about the size of a
  baseball diamond. The height of the top is adjustable by
  hydraulic jacks, from 20 feet to 26 feet.  The mobile launcher
  platforms stand on six massive stanchions at their VAB and pad
  locations.  The jack mechanism raises and lowers the platforms
  onto the stanchions at the beginning and end of a move.

       Two 2,750 horsepower diesel engines provide main propulsion
  power to drive four 1,000 kilowatt generators. Additionally, two
  1,065 horsepower diesel engines drive two 750 kilowatt generators
  providing power to the leveling, jacking, steering, lighting, and
  other onboard equipment systems. Also, there are 16 traction
  motors, four on each truck, rated at either 187 or 375 horsepower
  each. The transporter carries 5,000 gallons of diesel fuel on
  board and burns about 160 gallons per mile.

       The top speed of the transporter unloaded is two miles per
  hour. Moving a Space Shuttle to the pad, it averages less than
  one mile an hour.

       The transporter moves on four double-tracked trucks. Each
  truck is 10 feet high and 40 feet long. A single shoe on the
  track belt weighs 2,000 pounds each. There are 57 shoes per belt,
  and eight belts per transporter.

       The transporter has a turning radius of 500 feet. During the
  slow move up the launch pad's five percent grade, the
  transporter's leveling system does not allow the tip of the Space
  Shuttle's external tank to vary more from the vertical than the
  diameter of a basketball.

       The 130 foot-wide crawlerway was initially constructed by
  the Army Corp of Engineers with an asphalt top surface. However,
  due to the weight of the transporters and the space vehicles it
  carried, the road way was soon torn-up and had to be replaced
  with a more durable surface. Other surfaces tested included sand
  and gravel. Studies eventually proved a smooth river rock would
  give the transporter the traction it needed to round the curves
  without marring or sticking to the shoes.

       The crawlerway is now built in three layers with an average
  depth of seven feet. The thickness of the gravel top surface is
  eight inches on the curves and four inches on the straightaways

       The crawlers are expected to continue their traditions of
  service well into the next century.


                #   #   #   #


  NOTICE TO EDITORS:  The STS-35 rollout is scheduled to begin at 8
  a.m. EDT on Sunday, April 22.  KSC gates will be open to
  accredited news media covering rollout beginning at 5:30 a.m.
  Those who plan to cover only the ceremony should be at the KSC
  News Center no later than 8:30 a.m.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V11 #294
*******************